It's a tough call.  Some new saints are truly great.  

That street thug in charge of "Opus Dei" who was recently sainted....

...it made me think...

It took over 200 years for St. Louis de Montfort to be canonized.  Of course. long after these "new saints" are forgotten about or not paid any attention to, people will still be buying and reading books written by St. Louis de Montfort.

The entire post-Vatican II period will need to be reevaluated, and with a separating of the wheat and the chaff by a future saintly pope.  We're in a period of apostasy now.  By embracing ecuмenism (of the "no return" variety) and embracing pluralism and implicitly and explicitly renouncing Christ the King, what other word would we use than "apostasy"?

The sad thing is that some of these Vatican II saints are actual saints.  It will have to be settled at a future date.

By the time the conciliarists get around to canonizing Paul VI, the only thing left to do is press the play button and have the canned laughter roar.

I would say they are official acts of the Church, and must be respected as such.  It can't really see how they can be infallible now that the process has been gutted so badly.  As the Captain has pointed out, Escriva was a slug.  Mother Teresa was not a slug, perhaps, but there were serious problems with her morally and theologically.  

I agree with you, Sigismund.  I have no problem referring to Mother Theresa as St. Theresa or however the title is inserted.  Mother Theresa was an outstanding example of Christian charity.  It's true that she may have espoused many theological errors but she was not an intellectual nor a theologian.  She opened her heart to the downtrodden and the poor.  She walked the walk, in a manner of speaking.  Also, in Mother Theresa's defense, she was very busy running a convent and running hospices to actually spend time poring over theological treaties and, being emotionally involved in her charitable work, it's possible that she may have become somewhat sloppy.  The case where she befriended or aided a child predator may be an example of this sloppiness and not any form of malice.  

The NO has it's own NO "mass", it's own NO sacraments, it's own NO faith and it's own NO saints.

I don't rack my brains over it any more because like all things NO, validity is doubtful at best some of the time and certainly invalid most of the time - by design.

How do we know that the stigmata wasn't faked?  

Because back then, the Church had balls and didn't believe that he had the stigmata for most of his life either. It was only after they interrogated him, denied him the ability to say public mass, confined him to the confessional, and otherwise played devil's advocate for the majority of his life that the Church believed that the wounds that Christ gave him were real. Not to mention stories from the friars of how they could hear him being attacked by demons at night, people experiencing healing and other miraculous events due to St. Pio's intercession even while he was still alive, and World War II pilots seeing him fly beside their planes as they flew over his monastery, I think it's safe to say that St. Pio's stigmata was real.

Unless you really want to believe that this otherwise humble, poor, miraculous, and saintly Capuchin was also the greatest scam artist who ever lived, and who just wanted to enamor people with his fake stigmata and revel in the attention.

I have a problem with Padre Pio.
How do we know that the stigmata wasn't faked?  
I have also read other saints who had the stigmata but it disappeared.
 

I have never heard of anyone not believing that his stigmata was real.  Do you think he was hammering nails into his own hands or that it was a trick of the devil?  

Which other saints had disappearing stigmata?

Marsha

Quote from: Sigismund

I would say they are official acts of the Church, and must be respected as such.  It can't really see how they can be infallible now that the process has been gutted so badly.  As the Captain has pointed out, Escriva was a slug.  Mother Teresa was not a slug, perhaps, but there were serious problems with her morally and theologically.  

I agree with you, Sigismund.  I have no problem referring to Mother Theresa as St. Theresa or however the title is inserted.  Mother Theresa was an outstanding example of Christian charity.  It's true that she may have espoused many theological errors but she was not an intellectual nor a theologian.  She opened her heart to the downtrodden and the poor.  She walked the walk, in a manner of speaking.  Also, in Mother Theresa's defense, she was very busy running a convent and running hospices to actually spend time poring over theological treaties and, being emotionally involved in her charitable work, it's possible that she may have become somewhat sloppy.  The case where she befriended or aided a child predator may be an example of this sloppiness and not any form of malice.  

I am afraid I can't agree about Mother Teresa.  It may surprise people that I am so suspicious of her, being the closet thing this forum has to a liberal, but I am.  Even if we lay aside her theological peculiarities and write them off to her not being a theological or even especially bright, I am still very troubled by what seem to me to be moral lapses.  Her cozy relationship with dictators (like Bayby Doc Duvalier) and corporate robber barons like Keating are examples.  At the very least, she did not care where the money people gave her came from or who it had been stolen from before it was given to her.  This is not how a saint behaves.  

I have no doubt that Padre Pio was a holy man as so many other saints, but I am sorry, I have doubts about the authenticity of  stigmata.  For what purpose would  this phenomena be anyway?


A book argues that Pio faked his stigmata.

a book called Padre Pio and the Italy of the 19th Century, by historian Sergio Luzzatto says the wounds were self-created using carbolic acid and he claims to have found docuмentary evidence to prove it in the Vatican's secret archives.